W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-prov-wg@w3.org > October 2011

Re: ISSUE-110: Renaming prov:Role -> prov:EntityInRole

From: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2011 14:50:59 +0100
Message-ID: <CAPRnXtkZP+aPUi+NYiYU2tYXc92ekXVrnTMKsRCEV5Uao7MONw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
Cc: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 14:12, Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu> wrote:

> Note that the extension ontologies allow me to simply rdf:type the
> prov:Entity prov:used by the prov:ProcessExecution:
>     42    prov:used [
>     43       a commerce:Buyer;
>     44       prov:assumedBy <http://data.semanticweb.org/person/luc-moreau>;
>     45       a prov:EntityInRole, prov:Entity; # Since :Buyer subClassOf
> EntityInRole.
>     46    ];

> the prov:assumedRole is "filledIn" by inference, while non-inferencing
> applications can just use the rdf:type directly (e.g. Buyer).

I really like this. I know Luc will protest to the need for (here
quite strong) OWL reasoning for this to work. However a client doing
this can simply include the inferred properties in its serialisation.

Now here the pattern is that the EntityInRole instance is both a
subclass of commerce:Buyer and have prov:assumedRole commerce:Buyer.
This is OK thanks to OWL2 punning, I assume? (This would not make
prov:EntityInRole a subclass of owl:Class, right?) Would this cause
any issues?

How is the property prov:assumedRole defined? Is it a subproperty of
rdf:type, or should it be up to each user to decide to use this
pattern or not?

Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team
School of Computer Science
The University of Manchester
Received on Tuesday, 4 October 2011 13:51:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:58:09 UTC